>> from washington, the mclaughlin group, the american original for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. >> issue one, syrian rumble. >> we do have different perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence, securing chemical weapons, and ensuring that they're not used nor are they subject to proliferation. and that we want to try to resolve the issue through political means if possible.

>> our opinions do not coincide. but all of us have the intention to stop the violence in syria, to stop the growth of victims, and to solve the situation peacefully. the g8, a group of eight consists of russia, the u.s., the uk, germany, france, italy, canada and japan. g8 leaders, notably, put inand president obama met in northern ireland for a two-day summit this week. the civil war in syria has taken at least 93,000 lives. the g8 leaders concluded the conference with an agreement to seek a negotiated peace in syria by bringing together the warring to peace talks in syria. include top leadership that inspires public confidence,

unquote. in addition to supporting a peace process, g8 leaders pledged 1.5 billion to aid syrian refugees and condemn the use of chemical weapons and human rights abuses committed by both sides in the conflict. >> question, did anything happen at the g8 make it more likely that the syrian president will take part in the geneva talks to end the fighting? pat buchanan. >> i think assad is ready to go to the talks, but the rebels are not. they are getting whips. put inhas his one last naval base, his last one ally is syria. he wants to maintain that ally. they are winning the war now. it's the rebels who are in retreat. and president obama is putting one toe in the water and one

toe out. but the parties here, they have described that they are on the verge of winning the war. they're delighted to come to talks and the rebels won't because they are losing. >> well -- >> our president wants assad out. and put inwants putin wants him to stay. >> i think the u.s. is basically saying we don't want the whole assad regime to go. we just want assad to move aside. >> meaning the military can stay? >> yeah. the military, the government. in other words, they don't want to do what they did in iraq, where you dismantle the government and create chaos. >> that was a disaster. >> yes. pat is right when he says this war is going to be decided it

looks like militarily. at the g8 summit there was no appetite for escalating the involvement. there was no talk about a no fly zone or any of that stuff that has been talked about in this country. i think the possibility more military involvement looks less likely today than it did even a week ago. and peace conferences occur when one side is either clearly winning, which may happen soon, or both sides are militarily exhausted which happened after bosnia. i think we will get a peace conference this summer. that's good. but it may not necessarily vindicate the side that the u.s. is supporting. >> that seems quite reason on what you just heard. >> i agree with pat that sticking our toe in is not going to help u.s. there is too much at stake for putin and he

was defiant about it last week. there is no indication that the u.s. and russia are going to come together on this thing. putin is going to hold his ground. we're going to stick our toe in and provide a couple weapons and this is going to continue. i think assad is not going anywhere. >> well, i think this is going to be a major defeat for the united states if that is the case. what we have at risk here is having all of the people and all of the countries who are opposed to us have a major victory here which will tilt the general support for us against us. i think that's a major problem for us. you're not just talking about syria. you're talking about lebanon and jordan. all of these countries will be at risk. and we will lose whatever place we have in an area that we have been the dominant power in for generations. >> you have to look at what message is this going to send. >> i don't know if these other countries are at risk if assad stays in place or the government stays in place. most of the countries are concerned about continuing

stability. i don't know if they were hostile to assad. this is not -- one more thing. this is not a pro democracy movement. >> good point. the egyptians want him out. the turks want him out. the saudis want him out and we want him out. but the people serious about keeping them in, they are investing money and troops and blood and winning the war because our side won't make the investment in a victory that the other side will. and that's why the other side which is syria is winning the war. >> would you tell the president -- >> stay out of this because you're putting your toe in and prestige in and we're going to lose. >> it's a sovereign state. >> aren't we supposed to stay out of civil wars in sovereign states. >> the russians have ever right as a sovereign state.

they recognize a state to aid the syrian government, the same right that we had to aid saigon. >> and we have every right to stay out of the civil war and say this not our fight. that's what the president is doing. >> don't we have the united nations to take care of these things? >> john, that is -- >> united nations does not have combat troops. >> that is a hopelessly idealistic view of what will resolve. it will be resolved on the ground with military strength. we're not doing what we did, this whole red line over the issue of. >> chemical weapons. >> chemical weapons. it just was a joke. and everybody knows it. >> let the omi take care of the chemical weapons. >> that is easy to say but the army is not taking care of the chemical weapons. we're going to lose.

>> where does the president of the united states get the authority to send military forces into action in syria? there has been no authorization of war. >> why didn't you say that in the vietnam conflict. >> because we had a government that needed our help. we got no authorization in this war. >> it has been described as a phony resolution. >> it was voted by the senate. >> it has been attacked as being -- >> it was an excuse to go into a war that the president at that time thought he wanted to get into. i imagine in johnson was alive today, he would wish he made the other decision. the president is trying to keep us out of this war. >> haven't we had our fill in this country of war. >> that's just it. if the president is trying to do more than he is doing now, you're going to have backlash.

>> sovereignty is sovereignty. >> they don't want to get into another afghanistan or iraq. that is what he is tip towing in. >> toe into. >> the g8 speaks to the world economy. >> at the summit the g8 leaders issued a cautious assessment of the global economy. in a statement, the g8 warned that, quote, global economic prospects remain weak. though downside risks have reduced thanks in part to significant policy actions taken, unquote. in the u.s., the euro zone and japan. they depicted 2014 as a quote unquote difficult one with the euro zone in recession and the american economy still hampered by high unemployment. china did not participate in the discussions since china is not a member of the g8 although

japan, its neighbor, is. >> why are the economies around the world slowing down. >> because the economies around the world have accumulated too much debt and they don't know how to get the economies moving again. china's growth rate is down to 6 or 5%. no one knows where it's going. exports within the european community are dropping all over the place. virtually every european country -- look at the unemployment rate in spain. it's 26%. you look at italy, france and spain, they're all cass -- basket cases. they have a debt to retail. just to give you one little statistic. the spanish banks had total real estate lending equal to 109% of gdp. just in real estate lending. real estate has collapsed in the countries because there was a bubble that burst. that is where we are today. >> the unemployment rate for young people under the age of

28 in spain. >> it's about 50%. >> about 50%. >> yeah. but policies are not digging europe out of this. >> it was doing -- >> mort was doing very well on this. china's trillion dollar adjusted stimulus are now winding down. now we are entering the new normal. low growth, flat wages, high unemployment everywhere. what about china's 5 trillion purchasing stimulus? >> well, listen, they understand that -- >> 5 trillion. >> yes. they have a giant economy. i don't know those exact numbers because we have difficulty calculating what the chinese government does. >> they appear to have a serious problem. >> yes. they have had a huge investment by the government in the economy. they are building up infrastructure and doing what they need to. they, like everyone else, they are not making foreign sales.

>> exactly. they are not making foreign sales because china is going up and they are deeply competitive with the other asian countries. they no longer have employees making 5% of what americans make. as that rises, places like bangladesh and others can't make the exports that they used to make. >> we've been pushing them to go to the natural level. if it did, they would have a hellish problem on their hands. >> how serious is this china phenomena. >> the slowdown, if they catch a cold, the rest of the world gets the flu. >> people aren't buying their stuff because the economy is slowing down. >> back to syria. will there be peace in syria this year? yes or no. >> the only way there will be peace, if there's a syrian triumph in the war and that's my prediction at the end of the show.

>> possibility of a negotiated ceasefire over the summer. >> i agree with eleanor. it would be something negotiated at this point. >> assad's forces are clearly on the upswing and clearly winning. if there's an acknowledge it will be a acknowledgment of the people that we are aligned with. >> the answer is a stalemate continues. >> booted. >> well, i think ben has done an outstanding done. he is a little bit like bob muller, the head of the fbi. where he has stayed a lot longer than he wanted or he was supposed to. >> federal reserve chairman second four-year term expires next year. president obama's response in this interview is any indication that he won't be reappointed. mr. obama's candid comments are being widely interpreted on

wall street as him getting the boot. during the recession in 2009, emergency bailouts of wall street had a strong backlash. he embarked on a number of town hall meetings around the country to repair the feds image. the rising income inequality spurred the occupy wall street movement to take to the streets in 2011, protesting the same bail outs. the recessions lingering effects, 7.6 unemployment, the lowest labor force participation rate in 30 years and millions of long-term unemployed may have soured president obama on fed chairman

bernacki. his high is on his presidential legacy. if and when he leads the fed, his likely successor is janet eline, a reserve governor appointed by mr. obama who is in favor of lowering unemployment. the feds twin mandate by the way is to control inflation and maintain full employment. >> what are your impressions? >> i think he's going to leave. listening to the president talk, it sounds like someone who is ready to fire somebody. stayed longer than he should have. what it means is that if he's going to leave, he will have an exit strike thatee. that exit strategy will be to stop what he has been doing which kept the interest rates low. if he ends that program, as part of the exit strategy, you're going to see the markets react. we have to keep an eye on that.

>> he is going to end qe3. 80billion poured into the economy. he indicated he was going to bring it to an end. during the week this week, the market plunged after he said that. it must have been 500 or 600 points. that is the big question. is the monopoly money that he pumped into the economy, when they start pulling that back, is this economy going to go head over hills -- >> this is the third time that he has done it. >> in the first place he didn't put 3 trillions a year, it was 5 trillion over the last four years that he has put into the economy. 5 trillion in debt that we have accumulated. the national deficit. and he had to fund it. and he financed it through the qe3, q e2 and qe1, pulling the interest rates down to the

lowest that they have been in my lifetime and therefore yours too pat. it stimulated the economy to a degree to the extent it could. there are other factors that have made this recovery the weakest it's been. we just didn't have a 2% rate of growth over the last four years. it is the lowest rate of growth in the context of the biggest fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus in the history and we have been unable to have any kind of breakout and have the economy grow on its own. >> wait a minute. what is bernanke worried about? >> he's got to worry about a collapse. >> he's worried about inflation. he is an inflation hawk. in the light of that, in light of the conviction of that and in light of the reality of his conviction, namely the inflation is really worrisome, stay away from that, he embarks on the qe program. >> no. no. those were not the connections, john. what he was worried about was a

collapse of output. we had a major decline in the economy. >> did we have any inflation. >> no. >> is inflation a killer. >> we are all opposed to inflation. that's not the risk. the risk is the wholly economy comes apart and you would have a situation where you could have a major down -- >> we have to unravel the economy. >> we're not seeing it. >> because he has pumped all of this money in. the money has to stop. >> to you see how it's connected. >> yes. we have 24 million people -- >> what do you want to do? >> just a moment. 24million people in the country either out of work or given up looking for work or working part-time. >> it's terrible. >> that's awful. that's the worst numbers since the great depression. what bernanke did was prevent another great depression. >> the money that he is putting in, can we live with a 2% inflation rate. i want to stay on the inflation point. >> when you have this much excess capacity in the economy

where we are producing 6% less than what we could, that's the lowest level of production. we don't have a problem of inflation. >> let's put you in as a imagine that tiff head of the fed. what would you do now? >> i would not change the policies as he is suggesting. the economy is too weak to do that. >> let him finish. continue. >> let him finish. >> i would continue qe3 as pat was saying and i would continue that until we saw a rate of growth in the economy that got up to between 3 and 4%. >> let's hear it for qe3. >> and bernanke is not going to discontinue qe3 either. he is not going to pull out the out until we have 6% unemployment. excuse me, susan. there has been attention throughout his term, do you worry more about inflation or unemployment? you have a president that worries more about unemployment and it is his prerogative to

try something new. it's not to say that he has done a bad job. but he has been in there for two terms and i'm sure that bernanke knows that -- >> did he think of unemployment too and was a 6.5% figure of unemployment something that he projected and did that result in his view of qe3. >> contrary to what you have been saying, bernanke is worried about inflation, but less worried than he is about a collapse in the economy. that is why he took the risk of putting in the 3 trillion or 5 trillion and pumping it into the economy to get the economy moving. >> we haven't seen that amount of inflation yet. >> i want to hear what susan has to say. >> he is on his way out and he will have an exit strategy and it will end the quantitative easing. you will see rates go up and the real estate market will

react. every part of recovery that we have has been part of the housing market. >> his reputation is really on the line. because all of this stuff, this overhang of all of this debt, all this money that he's got out there could come back to bite you, especially, john, when you saw a drop in the dow and he just made a statement. >> janet as head of the fed. do you have any thoughts on her or just abandon that until it becomes a reality. >> i think janet will be more responsive to the president. >> i think the janet fed will worry more about unemployment than inflation. >> what do you think? >> i think that's one of the reasons that bernanke is on his way out, he wants to put her in. >> who, bernanke? >> she will take whatever monetary policy she feels to get the economy going again. she is more worried about unemployment. >> does bernanke favor janet. >> i don't know. >> janet is on his board.

>> this is a presidential choice. >> i suspect that he would be comfortable with her -- >> whatever exit strategy -- >> issue 3, the empire strikes back. >> these programs are critical to the intelligence community's ability to protect our nation and ally security. they assist the intelligence community efforts to connect the dots. >> general keith alexander is the director of the national security agency, the nsa. he testified before congress and defended the sweeps by the nsa. edward snowden a former nsa employee now in hong kong leaked details on how extensively the u.s. government conducts surveillance, the meta-

data of verizon, an american phone company and accessing everything that passes along the networks of u.s. internet companies. nsa chief alexander defends the surveillance program. he says that they helped stop more than 50 terrorist attacks around the world, including ten in the u.s., one was a plot to blow up the new york stock exchange. another plot by a group of san dean convicted of sending money to the somalia based terrorist group operating on the home of avenue ra candidate, an ultrastrategic group. the obama administration defends the surveillance programs as an indispensable matter of security. >> my concern has always been not that we shouldn't do intelligence gathering to prevent terrorism, but rather are we setting up a system of checks and balances. >> question, the u.s. government has decided in secret that intrusions on the

privacy of u.s. citizens are legal and worth the trade-off for greater security. is this decision debatable? >> absolutely. and it should be debated. i know this week that general alexander was defending it. i think it raises more questions. what are they going to do with this data. who can legally have access to it? can any lawyer have access to it for any criminal case, divorce case? there are all kinds of legal questions raised by this. how many people are having their calls listened to. he wasn't clear. they talked about meta-data. ask anyone on the street if they understand what that is. people are saying i'm on the internet all the time, on my cell phone, i have to have the expectation that someone is listening. the question is what is going to happen with this information? nobody has really answered that question. >> thanks to mr. snowden, i think there is going to be more transparency about the existence of these programs. nobody is sitting there and listening to everyone's phone conversations. >> i don't think that's clear.

>> that's a burden of responsibility on the government to explain more. the president is feeling the heat. on friday he metaphor the first time with his -- i think it's his privacy and civil liberties accountability board that was created in 2004. never functioned. reconstituted in 2007. never met. i think now we're having the debate that we should have had ten years ago. we have the luxury of having it now because we feel pretty damn safe compared to after 9/11. >> one of the reasons that president obama has plunged in the poles, i think his disapproval is up around 53 or 54 is he lost the support of a lot of young people who thought he was different when it came to all of these things like surveillance. i agree with susan. we really have to this debate and determine and set limits and write them into law and

find the balance between privacy. quite frankly the united states, all of this information exists. and a lot of us lean toward the fact that with warrants, the government ought to be able to get it if they've got to. >> snowden is not the first one to blow the whistle on this. three have been written up in "usa today." i saw the feature on monday of this week who three that were expelled after 20 years or so having served in that position that snowden held. and they were innocent and they are innocent. and the grievances are for americans to read about. we should hold off on judging snowden. do you agree with that. >> no. i think what snowden did is detrimental to the security of this american country. by that i mean if 50 terrorist attacks were in one form or another deterred or exposed, just think of what this country would be like if you had one

major terrorist attack like you had in boston every month in this country. you would change the whole tenure of life in this country. it is okay to block these. that's what we're going to be facing. it will be a challenging time. but we must find a way that terrorist attacks do not become the regular fare of what we have to deal with. >> well stated. the unemployment rate is 7.6%. it will drop to 7% by december 31, yes or no. >> dream on. >> by next spring. >> yes or no. >> not a chance. >> yes or no. answer, yes. bye-bye. xdxd

>> an attempt byko governor je brown and democratic leaders to water down xgnça5?(p&ifornia's records law sparks acñr major battle in the capital. the oakland a's want to ditch thet( coliseumçfor a new home i the south bay. now the city of san jose sues major league baseball to try to make it happen.=/%ñre1 >> we filed legal action toxdñ rid of restrictionsmy so the future mayors and counsels will be able to seek8@ a baseball t. >> the project in california history is egin. opening the way for e1w3endange seal heads trout to reach the traditional spawning grounds. with the interest on student